Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, I was trying to respond to Mr. Angus because it was a relevant point of order.

I encourage you again to try to weave your statement into something that is relevant to the motion.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

My point to my honourable colleague is that I understand where he's coming from. However, the fact is that I was never given a chance to talk about issues that are so important, not just to me but also my constituents and the people I meet with and talk to and receive phone calls from during this pandemic. I was never given any opportunity to go in depth to talk about these issues. I hope once I shed some light on these issues, the committee members will understand, or even just consider, that maybe we should switch our attention from debating the same thing over and over and over again to something that really matters to Canadians and that also addresses their everyday issues.

Very quickly, I want to share with you what the Bank of Canada has done on digital currency. There are three more points. I talked about how the techniques to achieve cash-like privacy are immature. Next is the following:

Maintaining privacy and complying with regulations (the latter which requires disclosure of information) present a [challenge] for a CBDC. This is further complicated by the need for proactive disclosure to prevent fraud.

Public trust in the privacy design the Bank enacts could be enhanced through third-party reviews of CBDC architecture and operations.

This October, just a month ago, Deputy Governor Tim Lane said the following during a panel on the future of money:

The main point, I think, is this is all looking a lot more urgent because of the speed with which technology is evolving.... With COVID, we've seen an acceleration of the shift of activities online and that suggests if we want to be ready to develop any kind of digital central bank product, we need to move faster than we thought was going to be necessary.

I would agree with the deputy governor. That was my point earlier, that it is rapidly evolving technology and something that needs to be reviewed before countries around the world start to move towards this direction. I'm sure members of this committee would agree that it is our role as members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to study the subject and to do so as soon as possible.

Chair, I expect to hear from my colleagues, as I've heard already a few times from the other side, “Just vote on this motion and we can get to yours.” Well, as I previously demonstrated, at both our last meeting and earlier in my remarks today, that's simply not the case. Voting on their motion doesn't mean I'll get a turn to speak next, or to move a motion next to be discussed and accepted, and to really get the committee to study something that, as I've heard from my constituents, is so important to them.

With that in mind, I move that the committee proceed to my motion from October 13:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vii), the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics conduct a study of no more than 4 meetings on the use of digital currency in Canada and around the world; and that the committee investigate the potential implications for individual citizens’ and businesses’ privacy and property rights in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, we presently have a motion on the floor. We can deal with one motion at a time. That's really the way the business of the committee works.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, far be it for me to interrupt, but I think if you asked the clerk you would find that this is a dilatory motion, moving to other business for the committee.

Perhaps we can take it up with the clerk or we can take a five-minute break.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I've seen a lot in my many years, but listening to Mr. Dong say that he feels he's been hard done by because he doesn't get what he wants when he wants to do something on his own is not a credible reason to interrupt what has been an ongoing discussion since the summer. Mr. Dong would rather do something else. Maybe he's bored. Maybe he should move to another committee. You can't erase a motion that hasn't been voted on. If he wants, we could send him the book of rules. He could read up on them. He could maybe help out at some other committees, but we have work to do. I think this is another game, another obstruction, another circus by the Liberals, and Mr. Dong should do better. I think we need to now get back to our motion and stop wasting time.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I just heard the lecture on the rules from the honourable member Mr. Angus to me as a new member, but I think this has been done previously. I remember Mr. Barrett interrupting Ms. Gaudreau's motion with his motion.

What I'm saying is that, given the history of this committee, 14 motions came forward, none of which were from this side—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Dong, please—

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

—so perhaps we can study my motion first.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Hang on for just a minute. Getting into debate amongst ourselves is not going to be helpful.

It is 1:14 p.m. right now, and I'm certain that people need to have a nature break anyway. Why don't we suspend right now and I will give you a ruling on what is at hand?

We will suspend for 20 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Colleagues, what we witnessed, and the reason we took some time to deliberate—there's a massive amount of experience, I can tell you, among the number of people who are looking into this matter—is that there is precedence for a motion being considered dilatory when there's an order from the House. In this case, there's no order to the committee in regard to the motion that Mr. Dong was proposing—to simply put another motion on the table and then sideline or remove the motion at hand and in debate—so we need to proceed with the motion at hand. We could consider new business after that, or if, of course, we have an order from the House, that would be substantive to go to a vote right away for the committee to consider that.

Right now, Mr. Dong, your motion would not be in order.

We'll continue on with the speakers list.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I listened carefully to what you just said. My colleague Mr. Angus also advised me that I should read the rule book, so I'm reading the rule book.

Bosc and Gagnon, on pages 1067 to 1068, states:

A dilatory motion is a motion designed to dispose of the original question before the committee, either for the time being or permanently. Dilatory motions do not require notice, nor can they be amended or debated. They are therefore put to a vote immediately.

The main dilatory motions admissible in committee include:...“That the Committee proceed to [another order of business]”:

This motion results in the matter then under consideration by the committee being replaced by the order of business proposed in the motion. If the motion is carried, the committee immediately proceeds to the “order” referred to in the motion.

I would ask if you could enlighten the committee on the interpretation of this section of the rule book.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Go ahead, Madam Gladu. Then I'll respond to Mr. Dong.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I realize that I'm not always at the ethics committee, but I have been paying attention to what goes on. I just think this whole motion is disgraceful.

I mean, this is a government that the Liberals have been calling open and transparent, yet the committee is trying to get at an ethical matter and they've done nothing but stall and filibuster and redact documents, with now minutiae procedural motions to keep Canadians from getting the information they absolutely need. I think it's disgraceful.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Gladu.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I'm just hoping that maybe we can actually get our committee back to a working relationship. I'm very glad Mr. Dong went and read the rule book, but this is clearly not a dilatory motion, and you ruled on it.

As for Madam Gladu's attack on Mr. Dong, I would like to offer a compromise. I mean, Mr. Dong has been obstructing our work for four months. We could have dealt with his motion at any time if we'd gotten our work done. As a compromise, I would ask Mr. Dong if he would agree to ask his Liberal colleagues to stop obstructing our work, allow us to deal with this motion and allow us to get this study done. If we had done this study back in September, we could be looking at his. Whether it has merit or not, we would have had an opportunity.

In an offer of compromise to Mr. Dong, would he agree to stop obstructing so that we're not wasting another day, another week, another two or three or four months? Then he may actually have an opportunity to present something to us. It's an offer of compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, I feel I need to respond to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'll tell you what, Mr. Dong. I'll be glad to allow you to respond to that, but first let me explain to you...because you came back with a concern and quoted from the book. You did rightly quote it. I may not have been coherent enough for you to get the parlance that we're dealing with.

There's a very fine line here. We don't have another order of business to go to. That is the fine line between ruling your motion in order or not. You're absolutely correct that if there were another order of business coming from the House that we'd be moving to, then that would be in order. Your motion is not an order of business. It's simply one that you can put on notice. It's not a motion that's an order from the House.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Okay. I was going to say that I remember.... First of all, I asked a whole bunch of questions when we considered Mr. Barrett's motion, including why we would run a parallel investigation with the commissioner's. The other point I pointed out is that there have been 14 motions put forward for discussion, and I just feel there was no opportunity for me to even propose the motion, which is of great interest to my constituents. We all have constituents to answer to.

The third point is that Mr. Barrett moved a motion to dispose of Madam Gaudreau's original motion and to put his motion forward. There was a recent precedent set, and that's why I put forward this dilatory motion for the committee to vote on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

In the case of Mr. Barrett's motion, first off the committee voted to do exactly what he said. He had moved a motion to suspend debate on that particular motion and then the committee voted. That's the history of what happened there.

This is a different circumstance. Believe me, Mr. Dong, I'm doing the best that I can and I want to commend our clerk as well, because she's also doing the best that she can in order to make sure that we get this right. I'm very confident in the ruling I just made to continue on in the fashion that we are with the motion that's at hand.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

On a point of order, I think this is the first time I've spoken and it's about 1:48, so about three hours in. It's really nice to see everyone of course.

Chair, I would like to ask, in terms of my study of the procedures.... I'm not a procedural expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I try my best to follow along and read the green book, which I have right behind me here, which I take out. I call it the green book.

In terms of how we proceed forward and trying to further understand what we can and can't present as members of Parliament here at committee, in terms of what dilatory motions are and what types of dilatory motions will be accepted here, I do ask, Chair, if you could please clarify for me and the committee members the types of dilatory motions we can present and will be allowed by you, with interpretation from the clerk. If we can get some explanation on that, I think that would be great for my understanding of how I can provide better feedback to the committee and better feedback in terms of understanding and learning as a member of Parliament. It would be greatly appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

With great respect and humility, Mr. Sorbara, we could have a workshop sometime on that. The passage on committees is quite [Technical difficulty—Editor] procedures manual. I have read it three or four times, and of course there's a new version out now. We always need to keep apprised.

Look, if it's a dilatory motion we will rule accordingly, and as I said, we'll do everything we possibly can to make sure the rulings are correct and fair to all.